for preempting individual state GMOlabeling requirements. One such groupis the Grocery Manufacturers Associa-tion, whose president and CEO said,“This legislation will open a new era fortransparency in ingredient informationfor consumers, by requiring disclosureof genetically engineered ingredientsfor families in every state across thenation. Its consistentnational standard isfar better than a costlyand confusing patch-work of different statelabeling.” SNAC In-ternational, the tradeassociation of thesnack industry, ex-pressed a similar senti-ment: “After a longtwo years of workingwith legislators on theGMO issue, we finallyhave legislation thatgives the industry andconsumers clarity…Manufacturers avoided a patchwork ofpotentially contradictory state laws andconsumers have product transparency.”The Oklahoma Farm Bureau, a nonpar-tisan organization of farm and ranchfamilies, noted it does not supporta mandatory label, but it still praisedthe law for preventing a patchwork ofstate-by-state laws and focused on thebenefits of GMO foods: “For decades,genetically modified crops have helpedfarmers produce an abundance of high-quality and affordable food, while alsodecreasing agriculture’s impact on theenvironment. A consistent national la-beling standard not only allows farmersto continue embracing GMO technol-ogy but also gives consumers access toinformation about their food.”But other groups argue that the na-tional law does too little to protect con-sumers—with an overly broad definitionof “bioengineering” and too many label-ing options beyond a clear GMO state-ment directly on the label—and wouldhave preferred that each state be permit-ted to enact stricter labeling require-ments. The Organic Trade Association(OTA), a membership-based businessassociation for organic agriculture andproducts that has supported the law, isexperiencing backlash from some mem-bers who would prefer a state-by-stateframework; the Organic ConsumersAssociation, a nonprofit public inter-est organization, wrote an open letterasking organic companies to canceltheir OTA member-ships. Additionally,the executive directorat the Center for FoodSafety stated: “The lawalso represents a majorassault on the demo-cratic decision makingof several states anderases their laws witha vague multi-yearbureaucratic processspecifically designed toprovide less transpar-ency to consumers.”

Option for a QR Code

A specific concern about the GMO
Labeling law is its option to include a
QR (quick response) code on the product label, directing consumers to the
company’s website when scanned on
their smartphones. Opponents of the
law argue that the electronic disclosure
option will confuse consumers and
make them jump through hoops to
figure out what is in their food. Additionally, the Rev. Jesse Jackson wrote, in
a letter urging President Obama to veto
the bill, that this aspect of the GMO
Labeling law would effectively discriminate against lower-income consumers
without access to smartphones.

Notably, the GMO Labeling law
does require that, within 1 year, USDA
conduct a study to determine whether
any technological issues would impact
disclosure through electronic means. If
the study reveals barriers to consumer
access, USDA may allow for additional
disclosure options.

What Happens Next?

USDA’s Next Step and the New Administration

Prior to the end of the Obama ad-ministration, USDA was attempting toobtain congressional funding for thestudy regarding the viability of elec-tronic GMO disclosures and aiming torelease notice of its proposed rulemak-ing and to seek public comment regard-ing the details of the regulations by theend of 2016. However, USDA did notmeet these goals by the end of 2016,perhaps because of the pending changein presidential administrations. On Jan-uary 5, 2017, the outgoing secretary ofagriculture, Tom Vilsack, released an exitmemorandum, calling the GMO Label-ing law “a landmark law for disclosure,”and stating that USDA “has establisheda working group and GMO DisclosureTeam to manage implementation of thelaw.” The memorandum further statesthat “USDA must ensure that the rule-making process closely adheres to theauthority provided in statute.”Moving forward, it remains to beseen how, if at all, the Trump admin-istration will affect implementation ofthe GMO Labeling law. On January18, 2017, the president nominated for-mer Georgia governor Sonny Perdueas secretary of agriculture. Perdue, likemany of President Trump’s other cabi-net picks, has been viewed generallyas antiregulation. Moreover, PresidentTrump has appointed Kansas senatorMike Pompeo as head of the CentralIntelligence Agency. Notably, SenatorPompeo authored and sponsored the“Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Actof 2015,” which would have precludedstates from requiring mandatory GMOlabeling and established a federal systemof voluntary GMO labeling.

Indeed, Trump himself answered
“yes” on the campaign trail in 2015
when the Iowa Farm Bureau asked him
if he supported the use of biotechnology in food and opposed efforts to
require mandatory labeling just because
a food contains GMOs. And he has
expressed plans to review and repeal
regulations he considers burdensome to
business and least critical to health and
safety. Companies and consumers will
watch and wait to see how Trump and

PACKAGING“…the GMO Labelinglaw has received lots ofattention from industrygroups, consumergroups and otherinterested parties.”